If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

Yes I too like listening to Rush Limbaugh

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:

Sure...it's a bigger problem that goes well beyond Obama....however, that being said

He wanted the job.....he put in his application to fix it.....he continued pushing the same policies the previous administration pushed....he did nothing to reverse the key areas needing reform.

Overall Spending, Corporatism, Interventionism.

He's in charge.....he can own it as much as anyone else.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

Yes I too like listening to Rush Limbaugh

The question is how revenues are increased. Republicans were not against revenue increases, they were against increasing the marginal tax rate. IIRC, there was a proposal on the table that would eliminate existing loopholes and reducing the marginal tax rate. Thereby, increasing revenue.

I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:

Hey dummie. Putting more people back to work equals an increase in revenues. You know like those 10,000 oil field workers that lost their job because Obama is disobeying a Fed. Court Order to allow drilling to continue in the Gulf of Mexico. There is more than one way to raise revenues. Jobs, jobs, jobs is the answer not higher taxes like fools on the left want. Furthermore, raising taxes will only put a dent in our excessive spending. It's the spending that has gotten us in this mess not taxes.

S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

More, stupid liberal tricks. They never get old. Take one tiny portion out of the entire report, and build your drum circle around it, because it appears to support your position.

Did you even bother to read the entirety of the report which puts your select little snippet into context?

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

The purpose of Standard & Poor is not to tell this country, or any investment source, how to run their business. The purpose of Standard & Poor is rate how that business is run. Standard & Poor doesn't care if the U.S. Government taxes itself into oblivion, cuts off all social programs, or sells off California to the highest bidder. All of those things would lower the debt to GDP ratio, and thus make us more likely to pay back our debt. All of those things would also be detrimental to America.

To break it down Barney style, for a Barney style mind: S&P doesn't know if it's better for the American economy and American people to raise taxes or cut spending on medicare or food stamps or defense. S&P doesn't care to know. All S&P knows is that the debt to GDP is too high in the short term, and congress doesn't seem too keen on fixing it one way one or the other. It's the job of the Congress to devise the best plan to satisfy our GDP ratio. Increasing revenues is another way. One way to increase revenues in the short term is to raise taxes, but that would hurt revenues in the long term. The best way to raise revenues is to raise GDP. When the governments gets the hell out of the way, and let's those evil, evil corporations start corporationing again, GDP will increase, unemployment will decrease, and revenues will increase. If we can stop the spending on handouts as well, our debt to GDP ratio will start looking just lovely again, won't it?

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

Actually, we have yet to see you be reasonable.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.

It's possible. All that we would have to do is recreate the global economic conditions under which that happened. Do you want to personally oversee the destruction of Europe or Japan, or delegate it to the jihadis and China, respectively?

And, BTW, you are ignoring the fact that, once the economies of Europe began to rebuild, our economy fell into a steep recession which was cured by the JFK tax cuts. But since you ignore all kinds of facts, don't let this one stop you.

And, BTW, you are ignoring the fact that, once the economies of Europe began to rebuild, our economy fell into a steep recession which was cured by the JFK tax cuts. But since you ignore all kinds of facts, don't let this one stop you.

The closest recession to occur prior to the Revenue Act of 1964 ended in February of 1961.

The closest recession to occur prior to the Revenue Act of 1964 ended in February of 1961.

IIRC the recession crawled out into slow to nil growth until 1963 or so, then took off in a long period of growth and prosperity, witch could be contributed to the anticipation and later enactment of tax breaks. Furthermore, the unemployment of this recession didn't peak until mid-1961, and tapered off as growth set in.

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense